Over the past year I've been reading a lot of opinions on the new init technology, systemd. Some people think systemd is wonderful, the bee's knees. Others claim that systemd is broken by design. Some see systemd as a unifying force, a way to unite the majority of the Linux distributions. Others see systemd as a growing blob that is slowly becoming an overly large portion of the operating system. One thing that has surprised me a little is just how much people care about systemd, whether their opinion of the technology is good or bad. People in favour faithfully (and sometimes falsely) make wonderful claims about what systemd is and what it can supposedly do. Opponents claim systemd will divide the Linux community and drive many technical users to other operating systems. There is a lot of hype and surprisingly few people presenting facts.

The mere fact that systemd is also/mostly developed by payed developers is irrelevant. This is just as true when it comes to kernel, Qt and other large OSS projects.

Plus,

It's a RedHat technology that's been introduced in RedHat, or RedHat-sponsored distributions because RedHat management decided that it was the best option for them and now it's becoming Debian's default by virtue of other pieces of software having significant dependencies on it. No merit was involved though systemd does have its merits.

1+ billion dollars in *paying* RHEL and Oracle Linux customers seem to point at the exact opposite (Let alone millions of CentOS and Scientific Linux users).
Again, if systemd was a "management decision" made by RHEL, I would imagine that the millions of RHEL systems would be flocking to a non-systemd distribution.
Thus far, I only see movement in opposite direction.

Again, you fail to explain what stops the million of oppressed anti-systemd developers and users from forking the latest non-systemd distribution and going on, on their separate way?

Can it be that most of the OSS developers are actually in-favor of a Linux/systemd based system?

The mere fact that systemd is also/mostly developed by payed developers is irrelevant. This is just as true when it comes to kernel, Qt and other large OSS projects.

It's relevant in the sense that the original approach taken when developing FOSS software is essentially gone. Since Debian is a volunteer based effort, they're sensible to this change. As you point out that holds true for the kernel and various other technologies (browsers, GUI toolkits, etc...).

1+ billion dollars in *paying* RHEL and Oracle Linux customers seem to point at the exact opposite (Let alone millions of CentOS and Scientific Linux users).
Again, if systemd was a "management decision" made by RHEL, I would imagine that the millions of RHEL systems would be flocking to a non-systemd distribution.
Thus far, I only see movement in opposite direction.

Why? I never said it was the wrong decision, it's most likely the right one as I had mentioned below. Systemd *has* its merits (a phrase you seem to have missed from my post) but it's not a volunteer based effort and it's becoming the default in Debian because no other projects has the economical resources to take on a commercial entity such as RedHat. That doesn't compare to something like the traditional discussion about which software is better in the FOSS community. Simply put, there's no alternative and that's why it's being chosen.

Again, you fail to explain what stops the million of oppressed anti-systemd developers and users from forking the latest non-systemd distribution and going on, on their separate way?

Huh? I never mentioned oppressed non-systemd distributions. Personally I'm using Fedora which has been using systemd for a while. Did my mention of systemd being a paid-for commercial effort just like MacOS X or Windows somehow hurt your feelings for it? You seem to be overreacting.

It's relevant in the sense that the original approach taken when developing FOSS software is essentially gone. Since Debian is a volunteer based effort, they're sensible to this change. As you point out that holds true for the kernel and various other technologies (browsers, GUI toolkits, etc...).

Leave Debian and other volunteer based distributions one of two options: Go with the flow, or face stagnation.

Why? I never said it was the wrong decision, it's most likely the right one as I had mentioned below. Systemd *has* its merits (a phrase you seem to have missed from my post) but it's not a volunteer based effort and it's becoming the default in Debian because no other projects has the economical resources to take on a commercial entity such as RedHat. That doesn't compare to something like the traditional discussion about which software is better in the FOSS community. Simply put, there's no alternative and that's why it's being chosen.

I agree that it doesn't.
One side is willing to put a lot of resources on developing a new modern base system infrastructure while the other side, *unlike* VI/emacs, KDE/GNOME or BSD/Linux that actually set out to drive their own unique view of such a solution, are currently limited to to very vocal, border-line abusive forum activists that define themselves by what they hate, as opposed to what they want to achieve.

Place the blame of RedHat for actually trying to be constructive is plain wrong.

Huh? I never mentioned oppressed non-systemd distributions. Personally I'm using Fedora which has been using systemd for a while. Did my mention of systemd being a paid-for commercial effort just like MacOS X or Windows somehow hurt your feelings for it? You seem to be overreacting.

My comment was not directed at you personally, and you know it.
You personal attach was childish and uncalled for.